• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

GOD'S OPERATIONS OF GRACE BUT NO OFFERS OF HIS GRACE pt2

Status
Not open for further replies.
George Antonios

George Antonios

Well-Known Member
Iconoclast said:
in the first thread we were considering a work by Joseph Hussey.
We were asked to examine this.
Is it true?
Is it false?
Is it mostly true, but he has some error?
Is it mostly false, but he has some truth?
https://mountzionpbc.org/Duty Faith/hussey-gods-operation-of-grace-mastere-MZ.pdf.
As the first thread was derailed I will post some bold but controversial thoughts offered by Mr. Hussey

1]The erroneous and unscriptural teaching of a universal atonement by the sacrifice of Christ, inevitably leads to the equally erroneous proclamation of a universal offer of Salvation.

2]The so-called Free-offer system was another by-product of the doctrine of universal atonement.

It was the manner of preaching adapted by those men who not only believed that Christ died to save all men, but also that men by nature, possess a Free-will ability whereby they may “accept or reject” the proposed “offer” of the good news.

3]The burden of Mr. Hussey's arguments is primarily to refute the unscriptural and Christ-dishonouring system of “Free offers” indiscriminately addressed to all alike. It is truly a blasphemous presentation of Christ's “finished” redemption, offered to all who will make it Effectual by their acceptance of the proposed offer!

4]The reader will note that Mr. Hussey's arguments against Free-offers of Grace, are well undergirded with the scriptures of truth, especially those touching depravity of the human will, election, Effectual calling, and the work of the Holy Spirit in regeneration or the new birth.

I like anyone who is willing to stand in the marketplace and make a scriptural stand.
I am hoping that he has a solid foundation.
How he applies it will provide the verdict one way or another.

If he is able to sustain his case then it would be offered as correction to infralapsarian persons.

if he cannot maintain it then he will prove to hinder the actual work of the gospel.

People who struggle with election and predestination will not be able to fully enter in to the discussion as they will be tooo busy struggling with their emotional reactions against truth to begin with
Click to expand...

I will never understand all the effort Calvinists put into changing non-Calvinists' minds when they believe that their efforts are irrelevant, if not contrary to the decreed will of God.
Your theory and practice are diametrically opposed.
 
JonC

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
Iconoclast said:
It is what the passage says when correctly understood. An Ambasssador....DECLARES..the message of the King. He is not free to change the message.
You are reading the word "might" as contingent, rather than actual.
Click to expand...
No I'm not. "Might" isn't in the actual text. The word is γίνομαι . Given the context of a future reconciliation in the previous verse the aorist is translated "might become".

Not contingent, but not past tense either. It is speaking of a future justification, a future reconciliation, based on a past reconciliation of mankind (as a type, i.e., the human race).
 
J

JesusFan

Well-Known Member
JonC said:
Yes, as that is one of the five points.

What I am saying is not all five point Calvinists believe the same.

Some believe Christ died only for the elect (no "offer of salvation" to the non-elect. Some believe Christ died for all, that all could be saved, but also for the elect that they would be saved. Some view God as electing men before the Fall, others out of Fallen men. These things affect doctrine.

There are a lot of differences within Calvinism (not just 5 point vs 4 point).
Click to expand...
Save for Hyper Cals, no Calvinist would say do not preach and teach message of the Cross to all sinners
 
J

JesusFan

Well-Known Member
George Antonios said:
I will never understand all the effort Calvinists put into changing non-Calvinists' minds when they believe that their efforts are irrelevant, if not contrary to the decreed will of God.
Your theory and practice are diametrically opposed.
Click to expand...
We do not claim to know whom God has elected unto eternal life in Christ though
 
I

Iconoclast

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Iconoclast said:
It is what the passage says when correctly understood. An Ambasssador....DECLARES..the message of the King. He is not free to change the message.
You are reading the word "might" as contingent, rather than actual.
Click to expand...
JonC
I quoted you using it in post 38..are you daying it is not in
George Antonios said:
I will never understand all the effort Calvinists put into changing non-Calvinists' minds when they believe that their efforts are irrelevant, if not contrary to the decreed will of God.
Your theory and practice are diametrically opposed.
Click to expand...
Not at all.
Being a non Cal is the default position
Of mankind.
God works through means, in real time as His eternal purpose unfolds.
That is not the topic on this thread however.
Here we are focusing on the pdf .
 
JonC

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
Iconoclast said:
JonC
I quoted you using it in post 38..are you daying it is not in

Not at all.
Being a non Cal is the default position
Of mankind.
God works through means, in real time as His eternal purpose unfolds.
That is not the topic on this thread however.
Here we are focusing on the pdf .
Click to expand...
I understand we are talking about post 38.

You implied (actually stated) that I was taking "might" as conditional. I am not. I am taking "might become" (one Greek word, γίνομαι, aorist tense, translated as "might become') to mean what it says rather than past tense (e.g., we became).

I agree with you that the word is not conditional. It is definite.

But we cannot extract that one verse and make doctrine (or interpret that one verse based on the theology we hold). Here is the verse in its own context :

Now all these things are from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation,
19 namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation.
20 Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were making an appeal through us; we beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.
21 He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

This is past tense:

God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself

He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf

This is future tense:

God made Christ, who knew no sin, to be sin on our behalf so that we might be one the righteousness of God in Him.

we beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.

The future tense statements flows from the past tense statements. God did this so that this would occur (a certainty, not contingency).

The article is incorrect.
 
George Antonios

George Antonios

Well-Known Member
Iconoclast said:
JonC
I quoted you using it in post 38..are you daying it is not in

Not at all.
Being a non Cal is the default position
Of mankind.
God works through means, in real time as His eternal purpose unfolds.
That is not the topic on this thread however.
Here we are focusing on the pdf .
Click to expand...

That's not the point. The point is that you're not trying to convince lost men of Calvinism, but saved men.

Either way, according to your theology, it's an exercise in futility.

Your doctrine and practice clash.

The only way out is to reckon that each of your attempts must always be the God-ordained means.
It's akin to claiming inspiration.
 
I

Iconoclast

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
JonC said:
No, being lost, an enemy of God, condemned, and unrighteous is the default position of mankind.

All Christians (true Christians, believers) are saved and the majority of the brethern are none of-Calvinists.
Click to expand...
That you and JonC do not understand is sad, but not the topic of this thread
 
I

Iconoclast

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
JonC said:
No, being lost, an enemy of God, condemned, and unrighteous is the default position of mankind.

All Christians (true Christians, believers) are saved and the majority of the brethern are non-Calvinists.
Click to expand...
That is your subjective opinion and not the topic of this thread.
 
DaveXR650

DaveXR650

Well-Known Member
Re the OP, I have read some of that article and I think he is almost totally wrong. He was somewhat of a crank. There are gimmicks and techniques of preaching that I think nowadays are overdone and to the point of blasphemous. I'm talking about the constant jokes and pop culture references, the patriotic and sports stories woven into sermons and so on. Besides that there is the legitimate question of how much anyone really can convince someone to come to Christ. But Joseph Hussey went way beyond that and condemned any proposition or offer of the gospel. The charge of hyper-Calvinism seems well earned for him. I was looking through the article trying to see what he really did preach and so far I haven't been able to find what that is. Then of course, if you go to the end he slams anyone who writes out their sermons. Does he have any sermons you can look up or was it all wrapped up in his head?
 
JonC

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
Iconoclast said:
That you and JonC do not understand is sad, but not the topic of this thread
Click to expand...
Do not understand what?

You are assuming, brother, that we do not understand because we disagree with you.

The fact is the majority of the world is lost.

The fact is not all Calvinists are saved.

The fact is Calvinism never saved a soul.

The fact is the natural state of man is condemned.

The fact is the majority of the brethern are non-Calvinists.

The fact is Calvinists and non-Calvinists who are saved are on equal ground among the brethern.

The fact is Calvinists and non-Calvinists who are lost are excluded from Christ.
 
JonC

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
Iconoclast said:
That is your subjective opinion and not the topic of this thread.
Click to expand...
No, it is not my subjective opinion. It is fact.

The majority of the Brethern are not Calvinists.

That in itself does not speak to the validity (or lack thereof) of Calvinism. It is just a simple fact.

The natural state of man is unrighteousness, condemned.

That is the only Christian position.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top